Hold on to your GMU 23/26A Shorts boys

Just found out the FSB will hold a teleconference public meeting on March 30, 2022 to hear WSA 21-01, which will I believe be broken up into two sections to cover the moose and caribou portions. Look for a public annoucement later this month. Written comments will be accepted, not sure if the public will be allowed to call in with comments.

As the WACH is now below the 200,000 population threshold where restrictions would be put in place based on the WACH Working Group plan, I believe there will be restrictions/closures put in place for the upcoming fall 2022 season.
 
table1.png
 
We should expect some type of restrictions, but science led decisions in the past have generally started restrictions by identifying a harvestable quota followed by reduction in cow/calf harvests followed by mandatory harvest reporting and as a last resort limiting non-local harvest opportunity.

I'm hoping sensitive compromises will be considered by the OSM before closing federal lands, but seems it'll have to include the Alaska BOG to restrict res/non-res harvest allocations, bag limits, and cow/calf allocations.

If we're lucky the decision to restrict won't have enough "problem" to allow status quo for locals and total restriction for non-locals. If the OSM closes federal land, that would be better for us than heavy restrictions supported by the ADFG and BOG because we'll hunt below mean high water legally. Even in a "declining" trend, harvest allocations are 10,000-14,000 caribou. Our take is around 300 bulls, so everyone can still harvest close to their normal quota with herd population at 198,000, especially if cow/calf harvests are limited or closed to locals who rarely report their harvests at all.
 
First off, Seth Kantner makes some great observations in this op-ed:
www.adn.com

When it comes to safeguarding Alaska’s wildlife and land, we can’t afford mistakes

We act as if we can do whatever we want, and these animals will be here for us. They won’t. That’s not the world we live in anymore.
www.adn.com www.adn.com

It's paywalled, but one of the points he made was about the 5-caribou bag limit PER DAY for locals, allowance still to take cows and calves, and how that seems to be contrary to sustaining the herd. He had proposed to the Board of Game to move to a 25 caribou annual limit per person, and here's a snippet from the op-ed on that:

"The local advisory board shot me down on my proposals and finished off by accusing me of being racist. Afterwards, they brought up a favorite subject — fly-in sport hunters, Outsiders, who are hated and blamed here for delaying the fall migration — and then passed a resolution to send to the Board of Game supporting making it legal to shoot calves. This as a solution to the problem of so many calves orphaned after their mothers are shot."

The non-reporting by fed-qualified subsistence hunters is still a huge issue as well. And until we get better compliance with the actual law (everyone is required to pick up a permit and report, whether it's subsistence or state hunt), we really don't know what is going on with harvests by locals.

In the end, though, as Larry points out, the FSB is gonna likely impose some restrictions. But overall, the board is missing the forest for the trees, in what Kantner brings up. As much as locals want to make it about Outsiders or non-local hunters, they need to take a close look at themselves and the actions they are supporting and taking. I listened in to the last NW Arctic Regional Advisory Council meeting, and they were discussing the taking of cows. A couple people brought up that it would be pretty hypocritical to support continued taking of cows with the population in decline, whilst also supporting restrictions for non-locals, but thats the direction the RAC went.

I'm okay with restrictions when the herd is within the threshhold for conservative or preservative management. Which is where we are now in terms of overall numbers. But everyone has to sacrifice. Everyone. Locals are not doing much imo in terms of that...and I wish the FSB recognized and took note of that.
 
So when you guys are talking restriction and hunting below the high water, what does that mean for us that have a fall 2022 hunt out of Kotz? For an end of august hunt, will there be caribou in that area?
 
In simplist terms what that means for a fall '22 hunt out of Kotz is that within this whole "proposed closure" that is WSA 21-01 the state of Alaska holds firm that they own and have jurisdiction on Alaska rivers and wildlife hunting below the mean high water mark, even on federal lands proposed to be closed by this special action. But what you'll have to wait and see about is the mechanics of the outcome with WSA 21-01 because if federal land closures are coupled with harvest restrictions then the state will be involved in the decision to restrict "us" (non-local hunters both resident and non-resident) will not be as easy as hunting below mean high water mark. Closures could involve state land too.

I believe the proponents will push for closures based on the current population status being at the critical threshold, but the state will likely argue their remains a harvestable surplus of 10,000-14,000 caribou so restrictions shouldn't be aggressive.

Hope that answers your question. The best thing to do besides monitor this thread is to stay in touch with your pilot for the outcome and his direction for your hunt.
 
This is probably a question for Alaska folk like Larry: if state lands remain open, and you can hunt between the median high water marks along rivers, are you essentially restricted to hunting bank to bank on a waterway? That is what it sounds like to me. Is it even feasible to successfully carry out a caribou hunt with that time of limitation to where you can walk/spot/stalk and hunt??
 
Jackal, yes that is essentially it. While there are hunters who hike and hump off river to harvest caribou, the vast majority of river hunters either stumble upon a shot op via floating OR they harvest while in camp along the river. In many cases, camping near a known fresh crossing point is how ops are more likely. So, if we can safely agree that statistics are 7.5 hunters out of 10 will harvest within mean high water marks, it's safe to assume the average guy will still have a better than decent chance at shooting a bull below mean high water mark on a 9-11 day hunt. These are just figures for making a point about historic success averages.

S-3, yes and not always. They use jetboats and .22 in late august to October, then in winter and spring they use snow machines. Like a pulse wave is strongest harvest during a river crossing migration and then scattered harvests when they are reachable followed by lulls for weeks or months of no activity until after late spring. The cycle repeats every august.
 
Larry Bartlett said:
Jackal, yes that is essentially it. While there are hunters who hike and hump off river to harvest caribou, the vast majority of river hunters either stumble upon a shot op via floating OR they harvest while in camp along the river. In many cases, camping near a known fresh crossing point is how ops are more likely. So, if we can safely agree that statistics are 7.5 hunters out of 10 will harvest within mean high water marks, it's safe to assume the average guy will still have a better than decent chance at shooting a bull below mean high water mark on a 9-11 day hunt. These are just figures for making a point about historic success averages.

S-3, yes and not always. They use jetboats and .22 in late august to October, then in winter and spring they use snow machines. Like a pulse wave is strongest harvest during a river crossing migration and then scattered harvests when they are reachable followed by lulls for weeks or months of no activity until after late spring. The cycle repeats every august.
Click to expand...
Thank you Larry.
 
As a non-native, but resident local hunter who is allowed to shoot 5 caribou a day.. this is so frustrating. Quit blaming non local hunters and close calf and cow harvests, and reduce the quota! Nome’s GMU allows residents 20 total. Do something similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nothing new, but I hadn't previously seen that ADF&G was officially in opposition of the proposal.

“The rationale given does not meet the requirements for such a closure under the provisions of Section 8 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) for either the conservation of healthy populations of moose and caribou or for the continuation of subsistence uses of such populations. Any approval of the proposed closure would be viewed as a violation of federal law, and we urge the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) to follow the law and reject this proposal.” - ADF&G deputy commissioner. Wonder how much influence they will have on the subsistence board.

Retrieved from issue overview by Outdoor Life: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ou...sa21-public-lands-hunting-closure-alaska/?amp
 
Quoted from the newly posted at analysis.

OSM PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Neutral on Temporary Special Action Request WSA21-01a.
This analysis has demonstrated valid arguments for both approving with modification and rejecting WSA21-01a. Ultimately, the Board’s decision will be guided by the objectives of Title VIII of ANILCA to provide a subsistence priority on Federal public lands while conserving a healthy caribou population and ensuring the continuation of subsistence uses of this resource.
76

There are two main actions the Board may wish to consider in response to WSA21-01a.
Approve WSA21-01a with modification to close caribou hunting to non-Federally qualified users in Noatak National Preserve and-BLM managed lands between the Noatak and Kobuk Rivers only August 1 to September 30, 2022.
Reject WSA21-01a, resulting in maintenance of the status quo.
Arguments addressing the conservation of healthy populations of caribou and continuation of subsistence
uses of caribou in relation to WSA21-01a have been compiled below.

I hope the board, at most, does not drift beyond these modifications and rather, will ultimately take the rejections option.



Here is the link to version A (caribou):


And Version B (Moose):



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There should be an updated analysis posted on the 23rd. So far, I think this is trending in a somewhat positive direction.

Trying to be as objective as possible here, but I n my opinion, with all input, data, and scientific research is considered, anything other than a rejection of WSA21-01a is just an attempt to appease the local RACs and natives in the corresponding communities. I simply can’t find valid justification.
 
Here's a map showing the Noatak National Preserve and Kobuk/Noatak Rivers in case anyone is interested.

The southern border of 26a is North of the Noatak. So, if the modification is to close the area "between" the rivers, 26 should be open?
 

Attachments

  • 5121.jpeg
    5121.jpeg
    367.7 KB · Views: 44
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
325,655
Messages
3,421,751
Members
75,586
Latest member
mtnmike85

Latest Articles

Back
Top